Child mania rating scale: development, reliability, and validity

OBJECTIVE: To develop a reliable and valid parent-report screening instrument for mania, based on DSM-IVsymptoms. METHOD: A 21-item Child Mania Rating Scale-Parent version (CMRS-P) was completed by parents of 150 children (42.3% female) ages 10.3 +/- 2.9 years (healthy controls = 50; bipolar disorder = 50; attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder [ADHD] = 50). The Washington University Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia was used to determine DSM-IV diagnosis. The Young Mania Rating Scale, Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia Mania Rating Scale, Child Behavior Checklist, and Child Depression Inventory were completed to estimate the construct validity of the measure. RESULTS: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the CMRS-P indicated that the scale was unidimensional. The internal consistency and retest reliability were both 0.96. Convergence of the CMRS-P with the Washington University Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia mania module, the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia Mania Rating Scale, and the Young Mania Rating Scale was excellent (.78-.83). The scale did not correlate as strongly with the Conners parent-rated ADHD scale, the Child Behavior Checklist -Attention Problems and Aggressive Behavior subscales, or the child self-report Child Depression Inventory (.29-.51). Criterion validity was demonstrated in analysis of receiver operating characteristics curves, which showed excellent sensitivity and specificity in differentiating children with mania from either healthy controls or children with ADHD (areas under the curve of.91 to.96). CONCLUSION: The CMRS-P is a promising parent-report scale that can be used in screening for pediatric mania.     

Movement disorder-childhood rating scale: reliability and validity

A new scale for children and adolescents aged 4-18 years, called the Movement Disorder Childhood Rating Scale, was designed to: (1) describe clinical features of different types of movement disorders; (2) evaluate the intensity of movement disorders in different body regions at rest and during specific tasks; and (3) assess the influence of movement disorders on motor function and daily living activities. The scale is divided into 2 parts: Part I for general assessment, and Part II for movement-disorder severity. It includes a 20-minute standardized video protocol of all items. The scale was applied to 61 patients with different types of movement disorder, and was independently scored by 3 observers. Reliability, construct validity, and consistency indexes are reported. High interrater agreement on each item, and a high degree of internal consistency on several proposed items, were evident.     

The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the bipolar depression rating scale

Introduction

Unipolar depression and bipolar depression differ in their clinical presentations, and the conventional depression rating scales fail to capture these differences. Recently, a new scale to rate the severity of depression in bipolar disorder was developed, and this study aims to evaluate the validity and reliability of this scale in a Turkish clinical sample.

Methods

A total of 81 patients (30 males, 51 females) diagnosed with bipolar depression according to the DSM-IV-TR criteria at three different sites in Turkey were interviewed with the Bipolar Depression Rating Scale (BDRS), the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale, the Young Mania Rating Scale, and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale Depression and Excitement subscales. Internal consistency, interrater reliability and concurrent validity of the BDRS were evaluated.

Results

The Turkish version of the BDRS had an acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.786). Moderate to strong correlations between the BDRS, and the MADRS (r = 0.808), and the PANSS-D (r = 0.426) were observed, and the BDRS correlated weakly to moderately with the PANSS-E (r = 0.297), and the YMRS (r = 0.368). The mixed symptom cluster score of the BDRS significantly correlated with the YMRS (r = 0.755), and the PANSS-E (r = 0.712). Exploratory factor analysis showed a three-factor solution. These factors corresponded to somatic depression, psychological depression, and mixed symptoms.

Conclusions

This study shows that the Turkish version of the BDRS is a valid and reliable instrument to measure depressive symptomatology in bipolar disorder. The scale has good internal validity, strong interrater reliability, and moderate to strong correlations with other depression rating scales.     

Norwegian version of the rating anxiety in dementia scale (RAID-N): a validity and reliability study

Objectives: Dementia-specific anxiety scales in the Norwegian language are lacking; the aim of this study was to investigate the validity and inter-rater reliability of a Norwegian version of the Rating Anxiety in Dementia (RAID-N) scale.

Method: The validity of the RAID-N was tested in a sample of 101 patients with dementia from seven Norwegian nursing homes. One psychogeriatrician (n = 50) or a physician with long experience with nursing home patients (n = 51) ‘blind’ to the RAID-N score diagnosed anxiety according to DSM-5 criteria of generalised anxiety disorder (GAD). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis assessed the best cut-off point for the RAID-N, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. Inter-rater reliability was tested in a subgroup of 53 patients by intraclass correlation (ICC) and Cohen's kappa.

Results: Twenty-eight of 101 (27.7%) met the GAD criteria. The mean RAID-N score for patients with GAD was 16.1 (SD 6.3) and without GAD, 8.8 (SD 6.5) (p < 0.001). A cut-off score of ≥12 on the RAID-N gave a sensitivity of 82.1%, specificity of 70.0%, and 73.3% accuracy in identifying clinically significant GAD in patients with dementia. Inter-rater reliability on overall RAID-N items was good (ICC = 0.82), Cohen's kappa was 0.58 for total RAID-N score, with satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.81).

Conclusion: The RAID-N has fairly good validity and inter-rater reliability, and could be useful to assess GAD in patients with dementia. Further studies should investigate the optimal RAID-N cut-off score in different settings.     

慢性脑器质性人格改变评定量表信度与效度的检验

人格改变是慢性脑器质性综合征的三个主要症状之一，以前对于脑器质性人格改变都是采用描述性的定义，没有量化的评估方法。作者编制脑器质性人格改变的评定量表，通过现场测试，发现该量表的效度和信度较高：灵敏度为９６．８％，特异度为８１．８％，Ｋａｐｐａ值为０．７６。     

The catatonia rating scale I--development, reliability, and use

The study objective is to present reliability data on the Catatonia Rating Scale (CRS). The CRS is a 21-item clinician-administered rating scale. Items are individually defined and are scored from 0 (absent) to 4 (severe). A definition for each degree of severity is provided for each item. The diagnostic threshold for catatonia is 4 symptoms rated at least 2 (moderate). The CRS requires, at most, 45 minutes to administer. Reliability data were evaluated in a sample of 120 inpatients, 71 of whom were catatonic. Ratings were performed by 4 pairs of raters. Interrater reliability was high (Pearson correlation coefficient = .91 to .99, intraclass correlation coefficient = .94 to .99). Internal consistency was very good (Cronbach's alpha = .8890). Analysis of individual items showed that all were frequently endorsed and occurred across a wide range of severity. The CRS is a reliable rating scale for the diagnosis of catatonia. Advantages of the scale, areas of use, and clinical implications are discussed.     

中文版统一肝豆状核变性评分量表的信度和效度的研究

目的 研究中文版统一肝豆状核变性评分量表(UWDRS)的信度和效度.方法 采用翻译和回译将UWDRS翻译为中文版本.应用中文版UWDRS评价110例肝豆状核变性(HLD)患者,评价其信度和效度.结果 中文版UWDRS量表总分为31.27(20.656,0～89),神经功能得分为17.53(15.867,0～64),肝脏功能得分为6.46(6.150,0～ 36),精神症状得分为7.27 (6.045,0～ 26).量表整体Cronbach α系数为0.967,神经功能为0.975、肝脏功能为0.493、精神症状为0.798.总量表Spearman-Brown系数为0.811,神经功能为0.941,肝脏功能为0.392,精神症状为0.775.总量表2次测定的重测相关系数为0.968,神经功能为0.970、肝脏功能为0.628、精神症状得分为0.823(均P＜0.001);总量表的两位评定者间相关系数为0.920,神经功能为0.927,肝脏功能为0.584,精神症状得分为0.676(均P＜0.001).结构效度没有只出现3个明确的因子,但有6个因子解释了总变异的50.685％.总量表的平均量表水平内容效度指数(S-CVI/Ave)值为0.99.结论 中文版UWDRS具有良好的信度和效度,但部分内容尚需进一步修订.     

多伦多述情障碍量表(TAS-20)的信度和效度研究

目的：评价TAS-20量表的信度和效度。方法：使用TAS-20对112例正常人对照样本和102例精神病人样本进行评定。结果：TAS-20具有良好的心理测量特性，Caronbachα系数在0.581-0.739，TAS-20各分量表的劈半相关系数在0.558-0.803，TAS-20各分量表得分在正常人对照样本和精神病人样本之间存在非常显著性差异。结论：TAS-20量表具有良好的信度和效度，值得推广使用。     

社区抑郁状态电话筛查问卷的编制及其信度和结构效度检验(上)

目的 为了提高社区中抑郁症的识别率,初步编制一个适合社区使用的用于电话筛查的抑郁状态问卷.方法 根据理论构想编制问卷的备选条目池,由98名专家和45例抑郁症患者分别对问卷条目进行评价后形成复选条目池,以所得条目评定200例门诊抑郁症患者,采用区分度分析法、极端值的临界比、相关系数法、因子分析法、克朗巴赫系数法5种统计学方法对条目再次筛选,最后编制出问卷并测试153例抑郁症门诊患者,并且在一周后选择其中的30人进行重测.结果 105个备选条目中初步筛选出条目42条,形成包含16个条目的 社区抑郁状态电话筛查问卷.问卷的克朗巴赫系数为0.906,重测总分相关系数是0.723,分半信度系数为0.886,因子分析提取出三个因子(抑郁心境、睡眠障碍及食欲变化),分析显示问卷结构效度较好.结论 本研究编制的社区抑郁状态电话筛查问卷效度具有较好的信度、效度.     

A rating scale for Gilles de la Tourette's syndrome: description, reliability, and validity data

We developed a rating scale for tic disorders that uses only objective criteria and accommodates the variety of tic manifestations. Using short videotaped recordings with the examiner out of the taping room, we measured five tic variables: number of body areas affected, frequency of motor tics and vocalizations, and severity of motor tics and vocalizations. The rating scale fulfilled tests for inter-rater reliability and temporal stability, and correlated well with scales used to assess global changes over prolonged periods. It objectively detected improvement in tics with neuroleptics, the one pharmacotherapy accepted to abate tics in most patients.     

阿尔茨海默病病理行为评分表信度和效度

目的 :评定阿尔茨海默病 (AD)病理行为评分表 (BEHAVE- AD)的信度和效度。　方法 :8名医生对 6例痴呆病人进行联合测定。对 6 3例痴呆病人进行 BEHAVE- AD和简明精神病评定量表 (BPRS)评定 ,48小时后重复 BEHAVE- AD评定。　结果 :同质性信度系数 Cronbach'sα=0 .770 3。联合检测一致性系数 ICC=0 .95 95 ,重测一致性系数 r=0 .96 1,P均 <0 .0 1。与 BPRS评分相比 ,相关系数 r=0 .475 ,P<0 .0 1。根据医生总体评定结果 ,将病人分组 ,各组病人的量表评分有显著差异。　结论 :BEHAVE- AD中译本有较好的信度和效度 ,值得推广应用     

Conners教师评定量表的临床效度研究

目的　检验Conners教师用评定量表的临床效度。方法　将Conners教师用评定量表(TRS)应用于符合DSM Ⅳ注意缺陷多动障碍 (ADHD)标准的 5 7例ADHD儿童及同年龄、同性别的全国常模样本上海组儿童。结果　 (1)内容效度 :ADHD组的因子分及总分均高于对照组 (t=11 2 4 0～16 6 5 2 ,P <0 0 0 1) ;(2 )效标效度 :TRS对ADHD儿童的诊断灵敏度是 86 0 % ,特异度 94 7% ,诊断符合率 90 3% ;(3)结构效度 :各因子与总分的相关 (γ =0 892～ 0 974 )超过各因子之间的相关 (γ =0 6 93～ 0 96 3) ;经最大方差旋转后得出了 5个因子 ,有 3个因子与美国TRS的因子相似 ,即多动、注意力不集中、冲动 ,并产生了 2个不同于美国儿童的因子 :社交问题、被动。结论　Conners教师用评定量表适合于我国儿童注意缺陷多动障碍儿童的评估。     

The Forensic Inpatient Observation Scale (FIOS): development,reliability and validity

INTRODUCTION: Re-offending, as a measure of success in forensic psychiatry, gives no information about other behaviours that may have changed. The development of the Forensic Inpatient Observation Scale (FIOS), an observation instrument to assess the non-offending functioning of forensic patients, is described. STUDY 1: In the first study the development of the initial item pool of the FIOS is described. This resulted in an instrument consisting of 78 items and seven scales. The internal reliability of the scales ranged from 0.78 to 0.91. The inter-rater reliability of the scales varied from 0.50 to 0.85 and the test retest reliability over a period of three weeks was high for most scales, ranging from 0.74 to 0.89. STUDY 2: In the second study the FIOS was developed further in another sample of forensic patients. This time exploratory factor analysis with Varimax rotation and post hoc reliability analysis were applied to determine the factor structure among the items. This resulted in an item pool of 35 items, among which six factors could be distinguished that closely resemble the factor structure of the FIOS in study one: (1) self-care, (2) social behaviour, (3) oppositional behaviour, (4) insight offence/problems, (5) verbal skills and (6) distress. Most items have high loadings on the factor they are assigned; 29 items have a loading of 0.60 or higher. The internal consistency of the scales ranges from 0.73 to 0.91 and the scales appear to be measuring independent constructs. Twenty-five out of the 35 items have an inter-rater correspondence of 90% or higher and 30 out of 35 items have an inter-rater correspondence of 87.5% or higher. The inter-rater reliability on the scale level, however, was somewhat less satisfying with correlations ranging from 0.50 to 0.69. DISCUSSION: It is argued that training the observers on a more regular basis will improve the inter-rater reliability. There is some evidence for the convergent validity of the FIOS. The FIOS has some advantages over existing inpatient scales in that it is developed specifically for forensic patients, it does not particularly focus on axis 1 symptoms but includes oppositional behaviour and attitudes to offending.     

激惹、抑郁和焦虑量表(IDA)的信度和效度研究

目的 评价IDA量表的信度和效度。方法 使用IDA、SDS和SAS对291例大学生和64例抑郁症患者进行评定。结果 IDA具有良好的心理测量特性，Cronbach α系数在0.419-0.769,IDA各分量表的劈半相关系数在0.427-0.639,IDA各分量表与SDS、SAS间的相关系数均在0．400－0．776，IDA各分量表得分在非抑郁大学生、抑郁大学生和抑郁症患者之间存在非常显著性差异。结论 IDA量表具有良好的信度和效度，值得推广使用。     

The reliability, validity and responsiveness of the International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group rating scale and subscales in a clinical-trial setting

PATIENTS AND METHODS: To assess the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group's rating scale (the International Restless Legs Scale (IRLS)) (V2.0), using pooled data from two matching, placebo-controlled studies of ropinirole for treating Restless Legs Syndrome (RLS). RESULTS: Pooled patient samples comprised 550 patients in the baseline (validation) sample and 439 patients in the week 12 longitudinal (responsiveness) sample. Factor analysis revealed acceptability of the IRLS total score (accounting for 40% of the variance) and that nine of the 10 IRLS items could also be assigned to two distinct subscales, the symptoms or symptoms impact subscales. The IRLS total score, symptoms and symptoms impact subscales had acceptable construct validity, internal consistency reliability (alpha=0.81, 0.80, and 0.76, respectively), and concurrent validity (r=-0.68, -0.52, -0.70, respectively, with the Restless Legs Syndrome Quality of Life questionnaire (RLSQoL) overall life impact score). IRLS scores differed significantly between different levels of sleep problems and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) of health status (P<0.0001), indicating known groups and clinical validity, respectively. Changes in scores differed significantly among CGI 'global improvement' levels (P<0.0001), providing evidence of responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The IRLS total score, symptoms, and symptoms impact subscales are reliable, valid, and responsive in a clinical trial setting.